These questions seemed directed at me eventhough you quoted TS. If there were not I apologise for answering them.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between an individual acting in technical violation of the law, but nonetheless appropriately under the extreme case? It seems to some extent to have been implied in other of your posts, but you have never to my memory expressly endorsed the concept.
|
Absolutely. I think breaking the law sometimes is a moral imperative. And even if it is a moral imperative, that doesn't necesarily mean the law should be changed to account for such situations (but usually it does because you don't want to encourage people to break the law, or make is necesary to break the law to act mmorally). But this same rule does not hold for morality. It is never necessary (in my view) for someone to act immorally.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I also have to second your scepticism regarding the notion of "innocence" v. "guilt." in the above hypothetical. How can the infant child of a terrorist be "guilty" inder the example of anything other that being born to the wrong parent?
|
As I told TM, a child is never guilty of the sins of the father.
